HUNDREDS of people gathered to show their support for the medicinal use of cannabis.

A meeting at Brighton’s Brighthelm Centre, hosted by the United Patients Alliance, saw scores of Sussex residents share their stories on how cannabis helped to cure them – including one man who said cannabis oil freed him of cancer.

The event was attended by Caroline Lucas, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion, and former government drug advisor Professor David Nutt. The pair shared their views on current laws surrounding medicinal cannabis use.

Michael Cutler, 63, from Hastings, said he was “sent home to die with a suitcase full of morphine” but believes he rid himself of the disease by taking cannabis oil.

Mr French said: “The highlight of the night for me was Michael Cutler’s speech – he took a room full of people on a roller-coaster ride of emotions. He conveyed a message of hope and you could feel every person taking in what he was saying.

“When Mike said ‘I’m now cancer free’ the whole place exploded, everyone stood and cheered with so much furore that it took me back.

“Now is the time we rise and throw off the shackles of prohibition. Cannabis is medicine.”

A House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee concluded that government action is needed “now, more than ever” to learn from countries such as Portugal, where use of medical cannabis is decriminalised.

A Home Office report is due to be published soon.

Caroline Lucas said: “It has been incredibly moving to hear the courage of so many people who are essentially just trying to get a drug to keep themselves well. To criminalise people is inhumane, unjust and immoral.”

There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.

There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.qm

qm wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti

c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called &quot;Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.

An intelligent post on the Argue website - well done sir/madam!
Let's see the usual suspects reactions as they wake up and go on-line?!

[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.[/p][/quote]An intelligent post on the Argue website - well done sir/madam!
Let's see the usual suspects reactions as they wake up and go on-line?!brighton bluenose

qm wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti

c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called &quot;Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.

Because it is by nature 'underground', we have no idea if the war on drugs is successful or not.

How is that success defined? By the number of seizures? The number of convictions? The (unknown) numbers of people deterred from trying them due to them being illegal?

And then things like this crop up.

It's a minefield.

[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.[/p][/quote]Because it is by nature 'underground', we have no idea if the war on drugs is successful or not.
How is that success defined? By the number of seizures? The number of convictions? The (unknown) numbers of people deterred from trying them due to them being illegal?
And then things like this crop up.
It's a minefield.stevo!!

First let’s look at what keeps cancer cells alive, then we will come back and examine how the cannabinoids CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabino
l) unravels cancer’s aliveness.

In every cell there is a family of interconvertible sphingolipids that specifically manage the life and death of that cell. This profile of factors is called the “Sphingolipid Rheostat.” If endogenous ceramide (a signaling metabolite of sphingosine-1-phosph
ate) is high, then cell death (apoptosis) is imminent. If ceramide is low, the cell is strong in its vitality.

Very simply, when THC connects to the CB1 or CB2 cannabinoid receptor site on the cancer cell, it causes an increase in ceramide synthesis which drives cell death. A normal healthy cell does not produce ceramide in the presence of THC, thus is not affected by the cannabinoid.

The cancer cell dies, not because of cytotoxic chemicals, but because of a tiny little shift in the mitochondria. Within most cells there is a cell nucleus, numerous mitochondria (hundreds to thousands), and various other organelles in the cytoplasm. The purpose of the mitochondria is to produce energy (ATP) for cell use. As ceramide starts to accumulate, turning up the Sphingolipid Rheostat, it increases the mitochondrial membrane pore permeability to cytochrome c, a critical protein in energy synthesis. Cytochrome c is pushed out of the mitochondria, killing the source of energy for the cell.

Ceramide also causes genotoxic stress in the cancer cell nucleus generating a protein called p53, whose job it is to disrupt calcium metabolism in the mitochondria. If this weren’t enough, ceramide disrupts the cellular lysosome, the cell’s digestive system that provides nutrients for all cell functions. Ceramide, and other sphingolipids, actively inhibit pro-survival pathways in the cell leaving no possibility at all of cancer cell survival.

The key to this process is the accumulation of ceramide in the system. This means taking therapeutic amounts of CBD and THC, steadily, over a period of time, keeping metabolic pressure on this cancer cell death pathway.

How did this pathway come to be? Why is it that the body can take a simple plant enzyme and use it for profound healing in many different physiological systems? This endocannabinoid system exists in all animal life, just waiting for its matched exocannabinoid activator.

This is interesting. Our own endocannabinoid system covers all cells and nerves; it is the messenger of information flowing between our immune system and the central nervous system (CNS). It is responsible for neuroprotection, and micro-manages the immune system. This is the primary control system that maintains homeostasis; our well being.

Just out of curiosity, how does the work get done at the cellular level, and where does the body make the endocannabinoids? Here we see that endocannabinoids have their origin in nerve cells right at the synapse. When the body is compromised through illness or injury it calls insistently to the endocannabinoid system and directs the immune system to bring healing. If these homeostatic systems are weakened, it should be no surprise that exocannabinoids are therapeutic. It helps the body in the most natural way possible.

To see how this works we visualize the cannabinoid as a three dimensional molecule, where one part of the molecule is configured to fit the nerve or immune cell receptor site just like a key in a lock. There are at least two types of cannabinoid receptor sites, CB1 (CNS) and CB2 (immune). In general CB1 activates the CNS messaging system, and CB2 activates the immune system, but it’s much more complex than this. Both THC and anandamide activate both receptor sites. Other cannabinoids activate one or the other receptor sites. Among the strains of Cannabis, C. sativa tends toward the CB1 receptor, and C. indica tends toward CB2. So sativa is more neuroactive, and indica is more immunoactive. Another factor here is that sativa is dominated by THC cannabinoids, and indica is predominately CBD (cannabidiol).

It is known that THC and CBD are biomimetic to anandamide, that is, the body can use both interchangeably. Thus, when stress, injury, or illness demand more from endogenous anandamide than can be produced by the body, its mimetic exocannabinoids are activated. If the stress is transitory, then the treatment can be transitory. If the demand is sustained, such as in cancer, then treatment needs to provide sustained pressure of the modulating agent on the homeostatic systems.

Typically CBD gravitates to the densely packed CB2 receptors in the spleen, home to the body’s immune system. From there, immune cells seek out and destroy cancer cells. Interestingly, it has been shown that THC and CBD cannabinoids have the ability to kill cancer cells directly without going through immune intermediaries. THC and CBD hijack the lipoxygenase pathway to directly inhibit tumor growth. As a side note, it has been discovered that CBD inhibits anandamide reuptake. Here we see that cannabidiol helps the body preserve its own natural endocannabinoid by inhibiting the enzyme that breaks down anandamide.

This brief survey touches lightly on a few essential concepts. Mostly I would like to leave you with an appreciation that nature has designed the perfect medicine that fits exactly with our own immune system of receptors and signaling metabolites to provide rapid and complete immune response for systemic integrity and metabolic homeostasis.

Also check out all GW Pharmaceuticals Patents: http://www.faqs.org/
patents/assignee/gw-
pharma-limited/

Cannabinoids DO kill cancer cells, here's how. It's quite a safe & novel cure as it happens. :)
https://dl.dropboxus
ercontent.com/u/2771
3298/Web/cure/How_It
_Works.html
"Cancer-specific Cytotoxicity of Cannabinoids
First let’s look at what keeps cancer cells alive, then we will come back and examine how the cannabinoids CBD (cannabidiol) and THC (tetrahydrocannabino
l) unravels cancer’s aliveness.
In every cell there is a family of interconvertible sphingolipids that specifically manage the life and death of that cell. This profile of factors is called the “Sphingolipid Rheostat.” If endogenous ceramide (a signaling metabolite of sphingosine-1-phosph
ate) is high, then cell death (apoptosis) is imminent. If ceramide is low, the cell is strong in its vitality.
Very simply, when THC connects to the CB1 or CB2 cannabinoid receptor site on the cancer cell, it causes an increase in ceramide synthesis which drives cell death. A normal healthy cell does not produce ceramide in the presence of THC, thus is not affected by the cannabinoid.
The cancer cell dies, not because of cytotoxic chemicals, but because of a tiny little shift in the mitochondria. Within most cells there is a cell nucleus, numerous mitochondria (hundreds to thousands), and various other organelles in the cytoplasm. The purpose of the mitochondria is to produce energy (ATP) for cell use. As ceramide starts to accumulate, turning up the Sphingolipid Rheostat, it increases the mitochondrial membrane pore permeability to cytochrome c, a critical protein in energy synthesis. Cytochrome c is pushed out of the mitochondria, killing the source of energy for the cell.
Ceramide also causes genotoxic stress in the cancer cell nucleus generating a protein called p53, whose job it is to disrupt calcium metabolism in the mitochondria. If this weren’t enough, ceramide disrupts the cellular lysosome, the cell’s digestive system that provides nutrients for all cell functions. Ceramide, and other sphingolipids, actively inhibit pro-survival pathways in the cell leaving no possibility at all of cancer cell survival.
The key to this process is the accumulation of ceramide in the system. This means taking therapeutic amounts of CBD and THC, steadily, over a period of time, keeping metabolic pressure on this cancer cell death pathway.
How did this pathway come to be? Why is it that the body can take a simple plant enzyme and use it for profound healing in many different physiological systems? This endocannabinoid system exists in all animal life, just waiting for its matched exocannabinoid activator.
This is interesting. Our own endocannabinoid system covers all cells and nerves; it is the messenger of information flowing between our immune system and the central nervous system (CNS). It is responsible for neuroprotection, and micro-manages the immune system. This is the primary control system that maintains homeostasis; our well being.
Just out of curiosity, how does the work get done at the cellular level, and where does the body make the endocannabinoids? Here we see that endocannabinoids have their origin in nerve cells right at the synapse. When the body is compromised through illness or injury it calls insistently to the endocannabinoid system and directs the immune system to bring healing. If these homeostatic systems are weakened, it should be no surprise that exocannabinoids are therapeutic. It helps the body in the most natural way possible.
To see how this works we visualize the cannabinoid as a three dimensional molecule, where one part of the molecule is configured to fit the nerve or immune cell receptor site just like a key in a lock. There are at least two types of cannabinoid receptor sites, CB1 (CNS) and CB2 (immune). In general CB1 activates the CNS messaging system, and CB2 activates the immune system, but it’s much more complex than this. Both THC and anandamide activate both receptor sites. Other cannabinoids activate one or the other receptor sites. Among the strains of Cannabis, C. sativa tends toward the CB1 receptor, and C. indica tends toward CB2. So sativa is more neuroactive, and indica is more immunoactive. Another factor here is that sativa is dominated by THC cannabinoids, and indica is predominately CBD (cannabidiol).
It is known that THC and CBD are biomimetic to anandamide, that is, the body can use both interchangeably. Thus, when stress, injury, or illness demand more from endogenous anandamide than can be produced by the body, its mimetic exocannabinoids are activated. If the stress is transitory, then the treatment can be transitory. If the demand is sustained, such as in cancer, then treatment needs to provide sustained pressure of the modulating agent on the homeostatic systems.
Typically CBD gravitates to the densely packed CB2 receptors in the spleen, home to the body’s immune system. From there, immune cells seek out and destroy cancer cells. Interestingly, it has been shown that THC and CBD cannabinoids have the ability to kill cancer cells directly without going through immune intermediaries. THC and CBD hijack the lipoxygenase pathway to directly inhibit tumor growth. As a side note, it has been discovered that CBD inhibits anandamide reuptake. Here we see that cannabidiol helps the body preserve its own natural endocannabinoid by inhibiting the enzyme that breaks down anandamide.
This brief survey touches lightly on a few essential concepts. Mostly I would like to leave you with an appreciation that nature has designed the perfect medicine that fits exactly with our own immune system of receptors and signaling metabolites to provide rapid and complete immune response for systemic integrity and metabolic homeostasis.
~Dennis Hill" - Retired Biochemist and Stage 4 Prostate Cancer survivor thanks to Cannabis oil.
Also check out all GW Pharmaceuticals Patents: http://www.faqs.org/
patents/assignee/gw-
pharma-limited/Tom Speed

Would like to see the evidence for the use of cannabis oil curing cancer. About as likely as reflexology doing the same thing.

Cannabis can cause mental illness - but so can alcohol.

The law, whether it wins a battle or not should reflect society's attitudes towards drug use.

In reality, maybe we should be looking at each drug on its merits and taking a view as to whether it could be made legal or not and under what circumstances?

However, if smoking and alcohol were somehow invented today we would almost certainly ban them as well.

Plenty of people are addicted to nicotine and alcohol, the legalisation of other drugs opens up the prospect of addiction to substances not currently freely, or legally available. Use of these drugs, though legal, might also lead to significant anti-social issues, even if relatively safe for the user.

Would like to see the evidence for the use of cannabis oil curing cancer. About as likely as reflexology doing the same thing.
Cannabis can cause mental illness - but so can alcohol.
The law, whether it wins a battle or not should reflect society's attitudes towards drug use.
In reality, maybe we should be looking at each drug on its merits and taking a view as to whether it could be made legal or not and under what circumstances?
However, if smoking and alcohol were somehow invented today we would almost certainly ban them as well.
Plenty of people are addicted to nicotine and alcohol, the legalisation of other drugs opens up the prospect of addiction to substances not currently freely, or legally available. Use of these drugs, though legal, might also lead to significant anti-social issues, even if relatively safe for the user.Plantpot

Nice to see our beloved Green MP has found another story to jump on to get maximum press coverage again. Self publicist in the extreme. She managed to get involved with stories on BBC Sussex three times last week. All stories of no real substance and about which she could actually do absolutely nothing as she is a lone voice in her own head.
She has no real interest in this issue except that she can raise her profile again.

Nice to see our beloved Green MP has found another story to jump on to get maximum press coverage again. Self publicist in the extreme. She managed to get involved with stories on BBC Sussex three times last week. All stories of no real substance and about which she could actually do absolutely nothing as she is a lone voice in her own head.
She has no real interest in this issue except that she can raise her profile again.Max Ripple

i don't for a minute think the proposed solution would be to blanket legalise it. I do personally believe that, as with anything of this nature, ie alcohol, tobacco (i'm not comparing them other than that they are substances which can if abused cause physical and physchological harm)
The successful model seems to be one similar to the american usage. license it as a prescription medicine, allow the growth of personal amounts and the sale of it for medicinal applications to people over the age of 18, while still penalising unauthorised use. Prohibition isn't working, the booming legal highs market is proof that for those who want to get off their heads, they'll find a way. at least we can say that of all the recreational substances, this one has the most research, available information, and anecdotal evidence base to draw on. it might not be safe, but nobody's criminalising wetherspoons or KFC, and we're only beginning to start applying harder regulations to tobacco- look what that costs the NHS per annum. At least if we replace some of the heavy expensive pain medication with a thing you can produce in your greenhouse for the price of a grobag and some water, and reduce the need for supplementary medicines to ameliorate the side effects of said painkillers (example being stuff to protect your stomach lining and/or suppress nausea caused by opiates) we might actually save a few bob.

Short version: If it helps people who conventional medicine has failed, we shouldn't as a society penalise them - it goes against the spirit of the NHS as a public health service for all regardless of their ability to contribute. If you don't like it, don't take it. and if you don't want your kids to take it, impress upon them the risks and drawbacks in the same way you would with tobacco, alcohol, etc etc. If you're still concerned about the judgement of your kids and their ability to make sensible informed decisions, you need to look at your parenting methods before anything else.

i don't for a minute think the proposed solution would be to blanket legalise it. I do personally believe that, as with anything of this nature, ie alcohol, tobacco (i'm not comparing them other than that they are substances which can if abused cause physical and physchological harm)
The successful model seems to be one similar to the american usage. license it as a prescription medicine, allow the growth of personal amounts and the sale of it for medicinal applications to people over the age of 18, while still penalising unauthorised use. Prohibition isn't working, the booming legal highs market is proof that for those who want to get off their heads, they'll find a way. at least we can say that of all the recreational substances, this one has the most research, available information, and anecdotal evidence base to draw on. it might not be safe, but nobody's criminalising wetherspoons or KFC, and we're only beginning to start applying harder regulations to tobacco- look what that costs the NHS per annum. At least if we replace some of the heavy expensive pain medication with a thing you can produce in your greenhouse for the price of a grobag and some water, and reduce the need for supplementary medicines to ameliorate the side effects of said painkillers (example being stuff to protect your stomach lining and/or suppress nausea caused by opiates) we might actually save a few bob.
Short version: If it helps people who conventional medicine has failed, we shouldn't as a society penalise them - it goes against the spirit of the NHS as a public health service for all regardless of their ability to contribute. If you don't like it, don't take it. and if you don't want your kids to take it, impress upon them the risks and drawbacks in the same way you would with tobacco, alcohol, etc etc. If you're still concerned about the judgement of your kids and their ability to make sensible informed decisions, you need to look at your parenting methods before anything else.UppityPrimate

I find it hard to understand that Caroline Lucas, being a 'Green' MP is behind this product.
As is evidenced in a story just 3 up from this on the Argus page, Cannabis takes extensive amounts of energy to grow in the UK (albeit illegally), and any Cannabis obtained through 'standard' routes (albeit illegally), have significant carbon-miles attached, as they have to be transported significant distances.
Without extensive scientific studies on the effects of Cannabis on treatment of cancer, any 'research' is just that - non-scientific. Non-specific results without controls will not indicate whether a change in lifestyle, avoidance of carcinogenics, or something else may have had more of an effect (The fact he was given a transplant is a distinct pointer here...) than the cannabis and it's pain relieving properties.
The reason people are given Morphine is that there's a more controllable, standard response to it, whereas Cannabis has different effects (including hallucinations/ psychosis) with different people.
But of course... Caroline supporting it means her backing will only last until the next general election anyway, so the chance of that having any effect is pretty much nil anyway.

I find it hard to understand that Caroline Lucas, being a 'Green' MP is behind this product.
As is evidenced in a story just 3 up from this on the Argus page, Cannabis takes extensive amounts of energy to grow in the UK (albeit illegally), and any Cannabis obtained through 'standard' routes (albeit illegally), have significant carbon-miles attached, as they have to be transported significant distances.
Without extensive scientific studies on the effects of Cannabis on treatment of cancer, any 'research' is just that - non-scientific. Non-specific results without controls will not indicate whether a change in lifestyle, avoidance of carcinogenics, or something else may have had more of an effect (The fact he was given a transplant is a distinct pointer here...) than the cannabis and it's pain relieving properties.
The reason people are given Morphine is that there's a more controllable, standard response to it, whereas Cannabis has different effects (including hallucinations/ psychosis) with different people.
But of course... Caroline supporting it means her backing will only last until the next general election anyway, so the chance of that having any effect is pretty much nil anyway.PracticeNotTheories

I think that the real issue is allowing something that is essentially sleazy and peripheral to become part of mainstream capitalism. It is an open secret that there are businessmen who go to sleep at night, dreaming of the business opportunities that would present themselves should classified drugs be legalised (Richard Branson included?) We can do without this. With this in mind, Caroline Lucas's typically gobby comments strike me as something of a trojan horse.

I think that the real issue is allowing something that is essentially sleazy and peripheral to become part of mainstream capitalism. It is an open secret that there are businessmen who go to sleep at night, dreaming of the business opportunities that would present themselves should classified drugs be legalised (Richard Branson included?) We can do without this. With this in mind, Caroline Lucas's typically gobby comments strike me as something of a trojan horse.theargusissoinformative

Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.Plantpot

UppityPrimate wrote:
i don't for a minute think the proposed solution would be to blanket legalise it. I do personally believe that, as with anything of this nature, ie alcohol, tobacco (i'm not comparing them other than that they are substances which can if abused cause physical and physchological harm)
The successful model seems to be one similar to the american usage. license it as a prescription medicine, allow the growth of personal amounts and the sale of it for medicinal applications to people over the age of 18, while still penalising unauthorised use. Prohibition isn't working, the booming legal highs market is proof that for those who want to get off their heads, they'll find a way. at least we can say that of all the recreational substances, this one has the most research, available information, and anecdotal evidence base to draw on. it might not be safe, but nobody's criminalising wetherspoons or KFC, and we're only beginning to start applying harder regulations to tobacco- look what that costs the NHS per annum. At least if we replace some of the heavy expensive pain medication with a thing you can produce in your greenhouse for the price of a grobag and some water, and reduce the need for supplementary medicines to ameliorate the side effects of said painkillers (example being stuff to protect your stomach lining and/or suppress nausea caused by opiates) we might actually save a few bob.

Short version: If it helps people who conventional medicine has failed, we shouldn't as a society penalise them - it goes against the spirit of the NHS as a public health service for all regardless of their ability to contribute. If you don't like it, don't take it. and if you don't want your kids to take it, impress upon them the risks and drawbacks in the same way you would with tobacco, alcohol, etc etc. If you're still concerned about the judgement of your kids and their ability to make sensible informed decisions, you need to look at your parenting methods before anything else.

Recreational Cannabis use is a Vice at most, and Vices are NOT Crimes!: http://www.lysanders
pooner.org/VicesAreN
otCrimes.htm

"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.

Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.

Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.

In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.

It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.

Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.

For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth."

I've used it for 25 years to treat migraines. Last month it was finally confirmed after 10 years of Scientific review that migraines, and other conditions, are indeed caused by Endo Cannabinoid Deficiencies, and Cannabis alleviates & thwarts migraines by simply 'topping up' my natural, but deficient, endocannabinoids with plant based ones. this is basically how Cannabis treats ALL illnesses to a great degree.

CONCLUSION: Subsequent research has confirmed that underlying endocannabinoid deficiencies indeed play a role in migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and a growing list of other medical conditions. Clinical experience is bearing this out. Further research and especially, clinical trials will further demonstrate the usefulness of medical cannabis. As legal barriers fall and scientific bias fades this will become more apparent."

[quote][p][bold]UppityPrimate[/bold] wrote:
i don't for a minute think the proposed solution would be to blanket legalise it. I do personally believe that, as with anything of this nature, ie alcohol, tobacco (i'm not comparing them other than that they are substances which can if abused cause physical and physchological harm)
The successful model seems to be one similar to the american usage. license it as a prescription medicine, allow the growth of personal amounts and the sale of it for medicinal applications to people over the age of 18, while still penalising unauthorised use. Prohibition isn't working, the booming legal highs market is proof that for those who want to get off their heads, they'll find a way. at least we can say that of all the recreational substances, this one has the most research, available information, and anecdotal evidence base to draw on. it might not be safe, but nobody's criminalising wetherspoons or KFC, and we're only beginning to start applying harder regulations to tobacco- look what that costs the NHS per annum. At least if we replace some of the heavy expensive pain medication with a thing you can produce in your greenhouse for the price of a grobag and some water, and reduce the need for supplementary medicines to ameliorate the side effects of said painkillers (example being stuff to protect your stomach lining and/or suppress nausea caused by opiates) we might actually save a few bob.
Short version: If it helps people who conventional medicine has failed, we shouldn't as a society penalise them - it goes against the spirit of the NHS as a public health service for all regardless of their ability to contribute. If you don't like it, don't take it. and if you don't want your kids to take it, impress upon them the risks and drawbacks in the same way you would with tobacco, alcohol, etc etc. If you're still concerned about the judgement of your kids and their ability to make sensible informed decisions, you need to look at your parenting methods before anything else.[/p][/quote]Recreational Cannabis use is a Vice at most, and Vices are NOT Crimes!: http://www.lysanders
pooner.org/VicesAreN
otCrimes.htm
"Vices are those acts by which a man harms himself or his property.
Crimes are those acts by which one man harms the person or property of another.
Vices are simply the errors which a man makes in his search after his own happiness. Unlike crimes, they imply no malice toward others, and no interference with their persons or property.
In vices, the very essence of crime --- that is, the design to injure the person or property of another --- is wanting.
It is a maxim of the law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent; that is, without the intent to invade the person or property of another. But no one ever practises a vice with any such criminal intent. He practises his vice for his own happiness solely, and not from any malice toward others.
Unless this clear distinction between vices and crimes be made and recognized by the laws, there can be on earth no such thing as individual right, liberty, or property; no such things as the right of one man to the control of his own person and property, and the corresponding and coequal rights of another man to the control of his own person and property.
For a government to declare a vice to be a crime, and to punish it as such, is an attempt to falsify the very nature of things. It is as absurd as it would be to declare truth to be falsehood, or falsehood truth."
I've used it for 25 years to treat migraines. Last month it was finally confirmed after 10 years of Scientific review that migraines, and other conditions, are indeed caused by Endo Cannabinoid Deficiencies, and Cannabis alleviates & thwarts migraines by simply 'topping up' my natural, but deficient, endocannabinoids with plant based ones. this is basically how Cannabis treats ALL illnesses to a great degree.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed/24977
967
"Clinical endocannabinoid deficiency (CECD) revisited: Can this concept explain the therapeutic benefits of cannabis in migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and other treatment-resistant conditions?
...
CONCLUSION: Subsequent research has confirmed that underlying endocannabinoid deficiencies indeed play a role in migraine, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome and a growing list of other medical conditions. Clinical experience is bearing this out. Further research and especially, clinical trials will further demonstrate the usefulness of medical cannabis. As legal barriers fall and scientific bias fades this will become more apparent."Tom Speed

Max Ripple wrote:
Nice to see our beloved Green MP has found another story to jump on to get maximum press coverage again. Self publicist in the extreme. She managed to get involved with stories on BBC Sussex three times last week. All stories of no real substance and about which she could actually do absolutely nothing as she is a lone voice in her own head.
She has no real interest in this issue except that she can raise her profile again.

Christ - if she wasn't visible pr@ts like you would still be whinging asking 'where on earth is she?' !!!!

[quote][p][bold]Max Ripple[/bold] wrote:
Nice to see our beloved Green MP has found another story to jump on to get maximum press coverage again. Self publicist in the extreme. She managed to get involved with stories on BBC Sussex three times last week. All stories of no real substance and about which she could actually do absolutely nothing as she is a lone voice in her own head.
She has no real interest in this issue except that she can raise her profile again.[/p][/quote]Christ - if she wasn't visible pr@ts like you would still be whinging asking 'where on earth is she?' !!!!brighton bluenose

Big pharmacutical companies don't want you to know this. They can't patent cannabis. But they know it is effective or they wouldn't be trying to produce synthetic versions that they can patent.

Cannabis is currently in schedule 1 of the misuse of drugs act. This means clinical trials cannot be carried out without specific Home Office approval. So according to the government, cannabis is more dangerous than opiates.

I can't help but be suspicious that cannabis is illegal for medical use due to the lobbying of big pharma companies. After all, if it turns out that cannabis can cure cancer (and research shows it kills cancer cells and protects healthy cells) as well as relieving the symptoms of many other illnesses, then they are going to lose a vast amount of money.

Big pharmacutical companies don't want you to know this. They can't patent cannabis. But they know it is effective or they wouldn't be trying to produce synthetic versions that they can patent.
Cannabis is currently in schedule 1 of the misuse of drugs act. This means clinical trials cannot be carried out without specific Home Office approval. So according to the government, cannabis is more dangerous than opiates.
I can't help but be suspicious that cannabis is illegal for medical use due to the lobbying of big pharma companies. After all, if it turns out that cannabis can cure cancer (and research shows it kills cancer cells and protects healthy cells) as well as relieving the symptoms of many other illnesses, then they are going to lose a vast amount of money.thevoiceoftruth

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; " Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".

2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed?term=
cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.

3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...

I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.

Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.

Good day, sir.

- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...

[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; " Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".
2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed?term=
cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.
3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...
I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.
Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.
Good day, sir.
- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...LordsAndLadies

Plantpot wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, &quot;fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.

Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.

[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.[/p][/quote]If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.
Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.thevoiceoftruth

Plantpot wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, &quot;fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.

Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.

"Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil" - read the evidence I posted above; particularly Tashkin's recent study (other one was in 2006), your statement is consistent with his findings; i.e. cannabis smoke is carcinogenic (unsurprisingly.. it's combustion) yet despite damage to the lungs, e.g. bronchitis (undoubtedly factoring damage caused by hot smoke alone regardless of it's source tobacco/cannabis) c

"In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."

If you don't agree with the scientists then you're deluded.

But Voiceoftruth I completely agree with you; the evidence is consistent.

[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.[/p][/quote]If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.
Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.[/p][/quote]"Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil" - read the evidence I posted above; particularly Tashkin's recent study (other one was in 2006), your statement is consistent with his findings; i.e. cannabis smoke is carcinogenic (unsurprisingly.. it's combustion) yet despite damage to the lungs, e.g. bronchitis (undoubtedly factoring damage caused by hot smoke alone regardless of it's source tobacco/cannabis) c
"In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared with the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco."
If you don't agree with the scientists then you're deluded.
But Voiceoftruth I completely agree with you; the evidence is consistent.LordsAndLadies

Amazing when evidence is presented and no rebuttals, supported by fact, is offered lol.

All I care about are those who need this; just google "Charlotte's Web cannabis" and tell me if you would stop a child from getting medicine just because it is "cannabis", it changed her life for the better and people who are staunchly against cannabis would deprive a child (or anybody in need) that right. Personally I think that is extremely oppressive and as Caroline Lucas said; "inhumane".

Get a grip people.

Thumb me down - I speak the truth supported by fact, you do not and you are blind because of your stubborness when evidence is provided for you, evidence... Fact... Not hearsay.

All aboard the thumbs down train.
Amazing when evidence is presented and no rebuttals, supported by fact, is offered lol.
All I care about are those who need this; just google "Charlotte's Web cannabis" and tell me if you would stop a child from getting medicine just because it is "cannabis", it changed her life for the better and people who are staunchly against cannabis would deprive a child (or anybody in need) that right. Personally I think that is extremely oppressive and as Caroline Lucas said; "inhumane".
Get a grip people.
Thumb me down - I speak the truth supported by fact, you do not and you are blind because of your stubborness when evidence is provided for you, evidence... Fact... Not hearsay.LordsAndLadies

Cancer Research UK say "...at the moment there isn’t enough reliable evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – can effectively treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing around the world."
I am sure cannabis may help some people who are unwell - so does morphine - the question is how it should be administered by medical professionals. The soundbites of Caroline Lucas are the usual puerile offerings and are no help at all.

Cancer Research UK say "...at the moment there isn’t enough reliable evidence to prove that cannabinoids – whether natural or synthetic – can effectively treat cancer in patients, although research is ongoing around the world."
I am sure cannabis may help some people who are unwell - so does morphine - the question is how it should be administered by medical professionals. The soundbites of Caroline Lucas are the usual puerile offerings and are no help at all.Cyril Bolleaux

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; &quot; Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".

2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pubmed?term=

cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.

3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles

/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...

I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.

Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.

Good day, sir.

- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...

Some of us are suspicious of emotional blackmail that appears to be motivated by vice more than health. Recreational drug use will undoubtedly be putting long term pressure on the NHS in the years to come, which can only turn into a discussion about whether the NHS is viable at all. If the Government and the NHS ever decide that some of the public might benefit from cannabis as a treatment, then this should only be administered as a 'controlled drug', in a controlled environment, which would be very expensive in itself. You have your opinion mate, but you moralise with your technical knowledge, while ignoring how vice and health users can be kept separate in practice; this would be another headache for the Police and the NHS staff who would be at the coalface with this stuff; please think of them.

Then there is Richard Branson, who can seem to smell a business opportunity a mile off, while purporting to only be interested in the common good.

And finally, you seem to be a 'cannabis nerd'. What are your other interests?

[quote][p][bold]LordsAndLadies[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; " Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".
2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed?term=
cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.
3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...
I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.
Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.
Good day, sir.
- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...[/p][/quote]Some of us are suspicious of emotional blackmail that appears to be motivated by vice more than health. Recreational drug use will undoubtedly be putting long term pressure on the NHS in the years to come, which can only turn into a discussion about whether the NHS is viable at all. If the Government and the NHS ever decide that some of the public might benefit from cannabis as a treatment, then this should only be administered as a 'controlled drug', in a controlled environment, which would be very expensive in itself. You have your opinion mate, but you moralise with your technical knowledge, while ignoring how vice and health users can be kept separate in practice; this would be another headache for the Police and the NHS staff who would be at the coalface with this stuff; please think of them.
Then there is Richard Branson, who can seem to smell a business opportunity a mile off, while purporting to only be interested in the common good.
And finally, you seem to be a 'cannabis nerd'. What are your other interests?theargusissoinformative

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

Going by these posts, there would seem to be an above average number of cannabis specialists in Brighton and Hove. Would there be a correlation with the city's high suicide rate?

[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]Going by these posts, there would seem to be an above average number of cannabis specialists in Brighton and Hove. Would there be a correlation with the city's high suicide rate?theargusissoinformative

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

Going by these posts, there would seem to be an above average number of cannabis specialists in Brighton and Hove. Would there be a correlation with the city's high suicide rate?

[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]Going by these posts, there would seem to be an above average number of cannabis specialists in Brighton and Hove. Would there be a correlation with the city's high suicide rate?theargusissoinformative

qm wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti

c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called &quot;Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.

"There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances"

What are you talking about? It's this kind of sweeping generalisation that fuels the ignorance surrounding the use of Cannabis. What substances are you actually referring to? Now if the article was about Crack Cocaine having medicinal value or methamphetamine relieving the symptoms of MS then that statement would be spot on. qm can you please point me in the direction of any evidence or actual accounts of Cannabis causing the death or irreversible damage in children related to their parents use or "misuse"

Finally while i agree that the war on drugs is not being won, your reduction of the many varied, detailed and well researched approaches to the regulation of Cannabis to "unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution" is greatly misguided. It is not suggested by medicinal advocates that we should "just make it legal" quite the opposite and if you had read the article properly you would see that.

You have basically equated Cannabis (a naturally occurring plant that requires no processing as such) use to that of Heroin or Crack Cocaine (which both require a chemical process to extract active ingredients) which undeniably cause massive loss of life and financial strain on society.

If we are to compare such vastly different "substances" then it should be in a scientific way. I would refer you to the work of David Nutt (mentioned above) who produced a scale/rating based on a study on the relative harm caused to individuals and others.

[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.[/p][/quote]"There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances"
What are you talking about? It's this kind of sweeping generalisation that fuels the ignorance surrounding the use of Cannabis. What substances are you actually referring to? Now if the article was about Crack Cocaine having medicinal value or methamphetamine relieving the symptoms of MS then that statement would be spot on. qm can you please point me in the direction of any evidence or actual accounts of Cannabis causing the death or irreversible damage in children related to their parents use or "misuse"
Finally while i agree that the war on drugs is not being won, your reduction of the many varied, detailed and well researched approaches to the regulation of Cannabis to "unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution" is greatly misguided. It is not suggested by medicinal advocates that we should "just make it legal" quite the opposite and if you had read the article properly you would see that.
You have basically equated Cannabis (a naturally occurring plant that requires no processing as such) use to that of Heroin or Crack Cocaine (which both require a chemical process to extract active ingredients) which undeniably cause massive loss of life and financial strain on society.
If we are to compare such vastly different "substances" then it should be in a scientific way. I would refer you to the work of David Nutt (mentioned above) who produced a scale/rating based on a study on the relative harm caused to individuals and others.
http://thomaskleppes
to.tumblr.com/post/2
6149335063/the-relat
ive-dangers-of-drugs
-what-the-science-sa
ys
http://www.thelancet
.com/journals/lancet
/article/PIIS0140-67
36%2810%2961462-6/fu
lltext#article_upsel
lBeSpoken

qm wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti

c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called &quot;Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.

"There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances"

What are you talking about? It's this kind of sweeping generalisation that fuels the ignorance surrounding the use of Cannabis. What substances are you actually referring to? Now if the article was about Crack Cocaine having medicinal value or methamphetamine relieving the symptoms of MS then that statement would be spot on. qm can you please point me in the direction of any evidence or actual accounts of Cannabis causing the death or irreversible damage in children related to their parents use or "misuse"

Finally while i agree that the war on drugs is not being won, your reduction of the many varied, detailed and well researched approaches to the regulation of Cannabis to "unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution" is greatly misguided. It is not suggested by medicinal advocates that we should "just make it legal" quite the opposite and if you had read the article properly you would see that.

You have basically equated Cannabis (a naturally occurring plant that requires no processing as such) use to that of Heroin or Crack Cocaine (which both require a chemical process to extract active ingredients) which undeniably cause massive loss of life and financial strain on society.

If we are to compare such vastly different "substances" then it should be in a scientific way. I would refer you to the work of David Nutt (mentioned above) who produced a scale/rating based on a study on the relative harm caused to individuals and others.

[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.[/p][/quote]"There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances"
What are you talking about? It's this kind of sweeping generalisation that fuels the ignorance surrounding the use of Cannabis. What substances are you actually referring to? Now if the article was about Crack Cocaine having medicinal value or methamphetamine relieving the symptoms of MS then that statement would be spot on. qm can you please point me in the direction of any evidence or actual accounts of Cannabis causing the death or irreversible damage in children related to their parents use or "misuse"
Finally while i agree that the war on drugs is not being won, your reduction of the many varied, detailed and well researched approaches to the regulation of Cannabis to "unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution" is greatly misguided. It is not suggested by medicinal advocates that we should "just make it legal" quite the opposite and if you had read the article properly you would see that.
You have basically equated Cannabis (a naturally occurring plant that requires no processing as such) use to that of Heroin or Crack Cocaine (which both require a chemical process to extract active ingredients) which undeniably cause massive loss of life and financial strain on society.
If we are to compare such vastly different "substances" then it should be in a scientific way. I would refer you to the work of David Nutt (mentioned above) who produced a scale/rating based on a study on the relative harm caused to individuals and others.
http://thomaskleppes
to.tumblr.com/post/2
6149335063/the-relat
ive-dangers-of-drugs
-what-the-science-sa
ys
http://www.thelancet
.com/journals/lancet
/article/PIIS0140-67
36%2810%2961462-6/fu
lltext#article_upsel
lBeSpoken

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

Going by these posts, there would seem to be an above average number of cannabis specialists in Brighton and Hove. Would there be a correlation with the city's high suicide rate?

I'm not from Brighton.

[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat
ive[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]Going by these posts, there would seem to be an above average number of cannabis specialists in Brighton and Hove. Would there be a correlation with the city's high suicide rate?[/p][/quote]I'm not from Brighton.LordsAndLadies

Plantpot wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, &quot;fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

Americans are on the fence about most things...

[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.[/p][/quote]Americans are on the fence about most things...Nikski

Plantpot wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, &quot;fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

Americans are on the fence about most things...

Try to keep your racism out of this thread.

[quote][p][bold]Nikski[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.[/p][/quote]Americans are on the fence about most things...[/p][/quote]Try to keep your racism out of this thread.stevo!!

Plantpot wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, &quot;fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.

Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.

So we're agreed - if cannabis does cure cancer, the active components will be isolated from the plant and administered as a medicine?

[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.[/p][/quote]If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.
Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.[/p][/quote]So we're agreed - if cannabis does cure cancer, the active components will be isolated from the plant and administered as a medicine?Plantpot

Plantpot wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, &quot;fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.

I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?

American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.

If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.

Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.

So we're agreed - if cannabis does cure cancer, the active components will be isolated from the plant and administered as a medicine?

I won't pretend to be an expert on this, so I can't answer your question with a simple yes or no. Chemistry was never my thing! My interest in this is simply due to a good friend who has terminal cancer and has been down the chemo route, but is interested in this as the chemo is causing damage to his liver. I would like to see cannabis moved out of schedule 1 of the drugs act so further research and trails can take place in the UK.

[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Plantpot[/bold] wrote:
Well, well, well, plenty of articles on the net promoting cannabis as a cure for cancer, but generally from ahem, "fringe" advocates of the drug. You never know, ultimately it may be a cure for cancer. One thing is for sure, given the natural variability of the make up of the plant, any cannabis cures will be of the distilled variety, where the medical components of cannabis are isolated and administered, and not the smoking variety.
I would have thought that in communities where cannabis smoking is rife, cancer rates would be negligible, or significantly below the norm?
American Cancer Society very much on the fence for this one.[/p][/quote]If you met some of the people using cannabis as medicine, you would be very surprised. They are not stoners but people from all walks of life. Many have MS and other serious conditions and they find cannabis relieves their symptoms and pain.
Also, just smoking a joint is not going to cure cancer. Firstly, as we know, smoking is bad for the lungs. Secondly, you need a large amount of cannabis concentrated into a small amount of oil. Once you have the oil, you take a tiny amount of it a few times a day. Most people use the Rick Simpson method.[/p][/quote]So we're agreed - if cannabis does cure cancer, the active components will be isolated from the plant and administered as a medicine?[/p][/quote]I won't pretend to be an expert on this, so I can't answer your question with a simple yes or no. Chemistry was never my thing! My interest in this is simply due to a good friend who has terminal cancer and has been down the chemo route, but is interested in this as the chemo is causing damage to his liver. I would like to see cannabis moved out of schedule 1 of the drugs act so further research and trails can take place in the UK.thevoiceoftruth

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; &quot; Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".

2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pubmed?term=

cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.

3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles

/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...

I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.

Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.

Good day, sir.

- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...

Some of us are suspicious of emotional blackmail that appears to be motivated by vice more than health. Recreational drug use will undoubtedly be putting long term pressure on the NHS in the years to come, which can only turn into a discussion about whether the NHS is viable at all. If the Government and the NHS ever decide that some of the public might benefit from cannabis as a treatment, then this should only be administered as a 'controlled drug', in a controlled environment, which would be very expensive in itself. You have your opinion mate, but you moralise with your technical knowledge, while ignoring how vice and health users can be kept separate in practice; this would be another headache for the Police and the NHS staff who would be at the coalface with this stuff; please think of them.

Then there is Richard Branson, who can seem to smell a business opportunity a mile off, while purporting to only be interested in the common good.

And finally, you seem to be a 'cannabis nerd'. What are your other interests?

You should be more worried about the impact of alcohol on the NHS and police. Not just due to liver damage and alcoholism, but all the fights, conflicts and accidents that arise from the use of this drug. It costs the NHS and police billions each year. Are you teetotal?

Cannabis does not cause people to end up in A&E on a regular basis, or to fight in the street and there has never been a single death from using it. It sounds like you didn't even read the story which wasn't about recreational drug use.

To top it off, you add some crazy, irrelevant nonsense about Richard Branson. WTF!

[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat
ive[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LordsAndLadies[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; " Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".
2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed?term=
cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.
3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...
I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.
Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.
Good day, sir.
- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...[/p][/quote]Some of us are suspicious of emotional blackmail that appears to be motivated by vice more than health. Recreational drug use will undoubtedly be putting long term pressure on the NHS in the years to come, which can only turn into a discussion about whether the NHS is viable at all. If the Government and the NHS ever decide that some of the public might benefit from cannabis as a treatment, then this should only be administered as a 'controlled drug', in a controlled environment, which would be very expensive in itself. You have your opinion mate, but you moralise with your technical knowledge, while ignoring how vice and health users can be kept separate in practice; this would be another headache for the Police and the NHS staff who would be at the coalface with this stuff; please think of them.
Then there is Richard Branson, who can seem to smell a business opportunity a mile off, while purporting to only be interested in the common good.
And finally, you seem to be a 'cannabis nerd'. What are your other interests?[/p][/quote]You should be more worried about the impact of alcohol on the NHS and police. Not just due to liver damage and alcoholism, but all the fights, conflicts and accidents that arise from the use of this drug. It costs the NHS and police billions each year. Are you teetotal?
Cannabis does not cause people to end up in A&E on a regular basis, or to fight in the street and there has never been a single death from using it. It sounds like you didn't even read the story which wasn't about recreational drug use.
To top it off, you add some crazy, irrelevant nonsense about Richard Branson. WTF!thevoiceoftruth

""There is some evidence that cannabis or cannabis derivatives might help with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, for example, sickness caused by chemotherapy. However, there have been only a few small studies in this area so we cannot yet say for sure.""
http://www.aicr.org.
uk/CannabisandCancer
.stm

""But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.""
http://scienceblog.c
ancerresearchuk.org/
2012/07/25/cannabis-
cannabinoids-and-can
cer-the-evidence-so-
far/

""There is some evidence that cannabis or cannabis derivatives might help with cancer symptoms and treatment side effects, for example, sickness caused by chemotherapy. However, there have been only a few small studies in this area so we cannot yet say for sure.""
http://www.aicr.org.
uk/CannabisandCancer
.stm
""But claims that this body of preclinical research is solid “proof” that cannabis or cannabinoids can cure cancer is highly misleading to patients and their families, and builds a false picture of the state of progress in this area.""
http://scienceblog.c
ancerresearchuk.org/
2012/07/25/cannabis-
cannabinoids-and-can
cer-the-evidence-so-
far/Dr Martin

Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.

I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; &quot; Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".

2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pubmed?term=

cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.

3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles

/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...

I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.

Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.

Good day, sir.

- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...

Some of us are suspicious of emotional blackmail that appears to be motivated by vice more than health. Recreational drug use will undoubtedly be putting long term pressure on the NHS in the years to come, which can only turn into a discussion about whether the NHS is viable at all. If the Government and the NHS ever decide that some of the public might benefit from cannabis as a treatment, then this should only be administered as a 'controlled drug', in a controlled environment, which would be very expensive in itself. You have your opinion mate, but you moralise with your technical knowledge, while ignoring how vice and health users can be kept separate in practice; this would be another headache for the Police and the NHS staff who would be at the coalface with this stuff; please think of them.

Then there is Richard Branson, who can seem to smell a business opportunity a mile off, while purporting to only be interested in the common good.

And finally, you seem to be a 'cannabis nerd'. What are your other interests?

You should be more worried about the impact of alcohol on the NHS and police. Not just due to liver damage and alcoholism, but all the fights, conflicts and accidents that arise from the use of this drug. It costs the NHS and police billions each year. Are you teetotal?

Cannabis does not cause people to end up in A&amp;E on a regular basis, or to fight in the street and there has never been a single death from using it. It sounds like you didn't even read the story which wasn't about recreational drug use.

To top it off, you add some crazy, irrelevant nonsense about Richard Branson. WTF!

I'm not arguing about alcohol. Was I ever?

I've got cannabis addicted friends who I've grown up with and moved away from. Anyone who is touching the hot potato of cannabis legalisation should first detail how vice and medicinal users can be kept apart, to demonstrate their sincerity in calling for legalisation.

As for Richard Branson, this is one of the most ruthless, insincere and calculating businessmen ever seen in this in this country in modern times. He seems to want to go to great lengths to shape popular culture for his own personal gain, which he covers with a smiley façade of bonhomie. He's not interested in legalising cannabis for medicinal use; he's only interested in the potentially profitable recreational use. The losers will be his new market of cannabis users.

[quote][p][bold]thevoiceoftruth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]theargusissoinformat
ive[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LordsAndLadies[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stevo!![/bold] wrote:
So cannabis is now an official cancer cure?
Hmmm.......
Anyway, Lucas supports its de-criminalisation? Let's hope that there isn't an election due in the coming months.[/p][/quote]I recommend you read the following: 1.) Dr D. Tashkin (2013), University of Southern California researcher; " Effects of Marijuana Smoking on the Lung".
2.) Scientific publications regarding cannabis and the effect (if any) on cancer in mammals: all available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pubmed?term=
cannabinoid%20cancer the problem with this link concerns some promising data which is now is out-dated since it was conducted in the 1970s... Sadly the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 severely restricted cannabis research as only one company can legally grow cannabis in the UK; GW Pharmacies... Who happen to also sell a cannabis based extract internationally and for hundreds of £ on the NHS. Either way the evidence is present if you look.
3.) Recent evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/pmc/articles
/PMC2806825/ showing cannabis "...Together, these results show that cannabinoid concentrations known to activate CB1 and CB2 receptors (here 1 µM) induce apoptosis in astrocytomas only when these cells express low levels of CB1 receptors, and that this response is mediated through ERK signaling..." I.e. the cannabinoids found in cannabis activate the cannabis receptors "CB1 and CB2" in the body and cause death (apoptosis) in brain cancers...
I highly recommend reading the evidence before you judge, it is people like yourself which contribute to the ridiculous stigma attached to cannabis and as a result people ARE suffering needlessly.
Furthermore in relation to your political point... Recent data shows the UK electorate are more inclined to be in favour of de-criminalisation and treating drug addiction/abuse as a health issue rather than a criminal one. Note the average prisoner costs you and I £37,000 per year. I doubt this post will change your opinion but the "hmmm" adequately shows us you are skeptical without even considering research. I have provided it for you, have a read and get back to us.
Good day, sir.
- Some lazy, "stoner", ignorant student...[/p][/quote]Some of us are suspicious of emotional blackmail that appears to be motivated by vice more than health. Recreational drug use will undoubtedly be putting long term pressure on the NHS in the years to come, which can only turn into a discussion about whether the NHS is viable at all. If the Government and the NHS ever decide that some of the public might benefit from cannabis as a treatment, then this should only be administered as a 'controlled drug', in a controlled environment, which would be very expensive in itself. You have your opinion mate, but you moralise with your technical knowledge, while ignoring how vice and health users can be kept separate in practice; this would be another headache for the Police and the NHS staff who would be at the coalface with this stuff; please think of them.
Then there is Richard Branson, who can seem to smell a business opportunity a mile off, while purporting to only be interested in the common good.
And finally, you seem to be a 'cannabis nerd'. What are your other interests?[/p][/quote]You should be more worried about the impact of alcohol on the NHS and police. Not just due to liver damage and alcoholism, but all the fights, conflicts and accidents that arise from the use of this drug. It costs the NHS and police billions each year. Are you teetotal?
Cannabis does not cause people to end up in A&E on a regular basis, or to fight in the street and there has never been a single death from using it. It sounds like you didn't even read the story which wasn't about recreational drug use.
To top it off, you add some crazy, irrelevant nonsense about Richard Branson. WTF![/p][/quote]I'm not arguing about alcohol. Was I ever?
I've got cannabis addicted friends who I've grown up with and moved away from. Anyone who is touching the hot potato of cannabis legalisation should first detail how vice and medicinal users can be kept apart, to demonstrate their sincerity in calling for legalisation.
As for Richard Branson, this is one of the most ruthless, insincere and calculating businessmen ever seen in this in this country in modern times. He seems to want to go to great lengths to shape popular culture for his own personal gain, which he covers with a smiley façade of bonhomie. He's not interested in legalising cannabis for medicinal use; he's only interested in the potentially profitable recreational use. The losers will be his new market of cannabis users.theargusissoinformative

qm wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti

c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called &quot;Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.

A lot of children die through the use of illegal drugs because they are sold by dealers. These dealers don't care what they sell or to whom and they will put lord only knows what into it so they can make more money.

If some drugs are legalised this sort of thing wouldn't happen or would at least happen far less as it would be a controlled drug like alcohol or tobacco, though in the case of cannabis a far less harmful one.

The schools that have drugs problems do so because it's easier for children to buy illegal drugs than it is legal. Again there have been plenty of reports etc written on the subject of why drugs has become such an issue for children and young adults.

More on point I strongly believe that this government needs to wake up and do something about legalising cannabis. There are too many children and people suffering, some even dying from treatable illnesses/diseases/a
ilments because cannabis isn't legal. There are many, many case studies, reports and clinical trials worldwide that support cannabis as a medicine because they have factual evidence and results. People just need to read them!

There is even a drug available right now that is being used to treat serious illnesses that is actually Cannabis based, it's called Sativex. The cannabis for Sativex is grown in the UK as well with permission from the UK government. So I believe we can stop speculating that cannabis is a medicine, it obviously is otherwise pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be investing in it and already creating medicine from it.

Just my opinion of course, the facts are out there though.

[quote][p][bold]qm[/bold] wrote:
There is a substantial amount of evidence supporting the use of some of these substances for medicinal/therapeuti
c benefit. There are also a significant number of parents whose children are now dead or irreversibly damaged by the misuse of these substances.
What is clear, is that the 'war on drugs' has been entirely unsuccessful reflected in a growing tide of casualties permeating our prisons and society in general. There was an excellent documentary (2011) called "Breaking the Taboo" involving a large group of public figures from the private, business and political sectors which inexplicably was removed from public availability. This broached many (but not all) of the arguments clearly supported by indisputable numbers available from public records which clearly showed the futility of the current campaign against drugs. 'The war' is clearly not being won but I for one remain unconvinced that the answer lies in a blanket 'just make it legal' solution. There is however another way and this is for society to resolve. Intolerance has proved futile, opening the floodgates would be catastrophic - discuss.[/p][/quote]A lot of children die through the use of illegal drugs because they are sold by dealers. These dealers don't care what they sell or to whom and they will put lord only knows what into it so they can make more money.
If some drugs are legalised this sort of thing wouldn't happen or would at least happen far less as it would be a controlled drug like alcohol or tobacco, though in the case of cannabis a far less harmful one.
The schools that have drugs problems do so because it's easier for children to buy illegal drugs than it is legal. Again there have been plenty of reports etc written on the subject of why drugs has become such an issue for children and young adults.
More on point I strongly believe that this government needs to wake up and do something about legalising cannabis. There are too many children and people suffering, some even dying from treatable illnesses/diseases/a
ilments because cannabis isn't legal. There are many, many case studies, reports and clinical trials worldwide that support cannabis as a medicine because they have factual evidence and results. People just need to read them!
There is even a drug available right now that is being used to treat serious illnesses that is actually Cannabis based, it's called Sativex. The cannabis for Sativex is grown in the UK as well with permission from the UK government. So I believe we can stop speculating that cannabis is a medicine, it obviously is otherwise pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be investing in it and already creating medicine from it.
Just my opinion of course, the facts are out there though.Rachelle RE